Hydro electric to power the printing presses. Powering them individually mechanically wouldn't have been practical.Was that hydro-electric, or did they use the mechanical power directly which seems to make more sense?
.
Hydro electric to power the printing presses. Powering them individually mechanically wouldn't have been practical.Was that hydro-electric, or did they use the mechanical power directly which seems to make more sense?
Can't wait for the overvolting hacks and shock absorbing fatsuits
Wasn't this black whole debacle an accounting trick and goal post moving. If the pensions or banking sector collapses they'll find a staggering amount of cash at the drop of a hat or better yet get the BoE to print some, then every corrupt individual gets a bung.could fix 'black hole'
Oh dear, yet another silly critic:View attachment 49996
Science, not "Scienc-ish", shows how pie in the sky full lithium battery electrification is?
(Source: Simon Michaux is an Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland.)
Wrong conclusion again, simply because we won't be using anywhere near as much energy in future. Simply because we won't be able to as your post shows.View attachment 49997
Any guess what this would do to electricity prices?
(Worldwide electricity use)
Aye, but not to reduce mining coal, not to reduce industrialization of developing nations, nor stop polluting the ocean, but to remove freedoms from folks in the west & to charge us an arm and leg in order to achieve the goal. As mentioned before, all to allow the mega rich grand kids of the future to breath clean air. There is science on both sides of the argument. Imo nothing done on either side will save the planet, it's too late the damage is done, we are doomed to the pages of a fiction book the likes of "Snowpiercer".government policy throughout the world to reduce all car ownership
Could well be true, though an equally likely scenario is that we will have left it to the last minute and then suffer really extreme drastic measures to save ourselves. In that scenario there will be no mega rich kids of the future, we'll all be living impoverished lives with more than few hints of life having a medieval character.Aye, but not to reduce mining coal, not to reduce industrialization of developing nations, nor stop polluting the ocean, but to remove freedoms from folks in the west & to charge us an arm and leg in order to achieve the goal. As mentioned before, all to allow the mega rich grand kids of the future to breath clean air. There is science on both sides of the argument. Imo nothing done on either side will save the planet, it's too late the damage is done, we are doomed to the pages of a fiction book the likes of "Snowpiercer".